Those of you with traditional marriage roles

[DawnM]

I wouldn't beat him over the head with I told you so's, but that has more to do with kindness than submission.  What would be the point?  He knew that I was against it.  If he saw the things I said come true, in the past he has been the one to say, I should have listened to you.  There have been other times he has warned me about a particular course of action which I still pursued.  I have appreciated his not throwing it in my face.  Again, what would be the point?

 

I was asking the person who said it because I can't see that you wouldn't have an "I told you so" attitude or some resentment towards him for being so foolish.

 

I don't have that kind of marriage, so this wouldn't be an issue and no point would need to be made.

[Guest]

But if the default is "don't do x unless we both agree" that means someone is still having to give up something in that scenario. It's not a neutral impasse to default to "no". There still has to be a meeting of the minds and one partner has to sacrifice, even if they are only sacrificing a dream or wish to do something.

 

So you could say if he's not allowed to invest because she doesn't want to then it might as well be "her money".

Negative. The money is already in hand. Changing nothing about the status of the money is a non action. Any random bee up the butt about changing the status of the money being under committee oversight is not a sacrifice, it is nothing.

 

You're using "allowed" not allowed terminology. It's not about being allowed, it's about being community (of 2) property.

[Guest]

Sorry to talk about you like you're not here, crimson, we are just using the example you provided as short-handed. If you don't like that, I'm happy to use something more made up?

[marbel]

I was asking the person who said it because I can't see that you wouldn't have an "I told you so" attitude or some resentment towards him for being so foolish.

 

I don't have that kind of marriage, so this wouldn't be an issue and no point would need to be made.

 

Not the person  you asked, but... resentment and "I told you so" have no part in this.  As Goldberry said, what would be the point?   

 

If my husband and I trust each other to make decisions, we have to be ready to live with the consequences. We have both made our share of stupid decisions, individually and together, most minor, but not all.    

 

It makes no difference who makes the decision. Anyone can make a mistake.  You aren't suggesting that when people make decisions together, or decisions are left to the person who feels more passionately about something, or has more expertise in the area, no one ever makes a mistake, are you?  

[goldberry]

I was asking the person who said it because I can't see that you wouldn't have an "I told you so" attitude or some resentment towards him for being so foolish.

 

I don't have that kind of marriage, so this wouldn't be an issue and no point would need to be made.

 

I've been in this position though.  DH really wanted to do something I knew would go bad.  I did have some moments of private eye-rolling (um, YEAH, of course this happened!)  but no, not resentment specifically, because I've made enough mistakes of those kinds myself.   I did remind him that he owed me one the next time I did something similar! ;)

 

I also have a friend (non-religious, non-traditional marriage) whose husband was determined to invest in a coffee shop for their retirement.  She was against it, but he was so determined!  She did her best to make it work.  It did not work.  They lost a significant amount of money.  She did not throw it in his face, but there was resentment until he finally owned up and said, "I'm really sorry, you said this would happen and it did."  After that, they were able to move forward.  

[DawnM]

Not the person  you asked, but... resentment and "I told you so" have no part in this.  As Goldberry said, what would be the point?   

 

If my husband and I trust each other to make decisions, we have to be ready to live with the consequences. We have both made our share of stupid decisions, individually and together, most minor, but not all.    

 

It makes no difference who makes the decision. Anyone can make a mistake.  You aren't suggesting that when people make decisions together, or decisions are left to the person who feels more passionately about something, or has more expertise in the area, no one ever makes a mistake, are you?  

 

Oh good grief.....I am saying that if my husband wants to invest $5,000 into a friends' new business and I think it is a really bad idea, but he goes ahead and does it anyway, I would be upset.

 

And yes, when we couldn't pay for my son's community college tuition, this conversation might come up!  And I would expect it to come up if it were the other way around.....not because we are vengeful people, but because we are human and we expect each other to RESPECT the other's opinions.  

 

But thankfully, we are NOT in that kind of marriage and this will NEVER happen.

 

I am getting piled on by everyone BUT the person to whom I addressed it.  The person to whom I was speaking referenced a book which really sets off my triggers as I watch so many women suffering with bad husbands.  

 

 

Edited July 8, 2017 by DawnM

[goldberry]

I also want to add that after 30 years of marriage, I have realized that when a man does something stupid against your advice, and he later sees the consequences, that being kind to him is like giving him the greatest gift you can ever imagine purchasing.  HE KNOWS.  He knows he screwed up.  By you giving him grace and not being either resentful or I-told-you-so... well, that's a kindness that banks a lot of equity in a marriage.

 

Now if you really don't think he knows he screwed up, I can see resentment might be there.  In the example I gave with my friend, he continued to defend the decision.  There was a lot of stony silence.  It took awhile before he acknowledge and took ownership.

[Guest]

Oh good grief.....I am saying that if my husband wants to invest $5,000 into a friends' new business and I think it is a really bad idea, but he goes ahead and does it anyway, I would be upset.

 

And yes, when we couldn't pay for my son's community college tuition, this conversation might come up!

 

But thankfully, we are NOT in that kind of marriage and this will NEVER happen.

 

I am getting piled on by everyone BUT the person to whom I addressed it.

Yeah.

 

This is so duh to me: run someone through the wringer and you expect to need to gird yourself cause they are GOING to be pissed.

[DawnM]

I also want to add that after 30 years of marriage, I have realized that when a man does something stupid against your advice, and he later sees the consequences, that being kind to him is like giving him the greatest gift you can ever imagine purchasing.  HE KNOWS.  He knows he screwed up.  By you giving him grace and not being either resentful or I-told-you-so... well, that's a kindness that banks a lot of equity in a marriage.

 

Now if you really don't think he knows he screwed up, I can see resentment might be there.  In the example I gave with my friend, he continued to defend the decision.  There was a lot of stony silence.  It took awhile before he acknowledge and took ownership.

 

 

Thankfully, we don't have the kind of marriage where either of us would do something blatantly against the other's wishes.  So, there ya go.

[goldberry]

 

 

I am getting piled on by everyone BUT the person to whom I addressed it.  The person to whom I was speaking referenced a book which really sets off my triggers as I watch so many women suffering with bad husbands.  

 

I'm sorry Dawn, I was just responding in general to the idea, not meaning to target you or your post. It's was interesting to me because it reminded me of various actual situations.   :grouphug:

[Guest]

I also want to add that after 30 years of marriage, I have realized that when a man does something stupid against your advice, and he later sees the consequences, that being kind to him is like giving him the greatest gift you can ever imagine purchasing. HE KNOWS. He knows he screwed up. By you giving him grace and not being either resentful or I-told-you-so... well, that's a kindness that banks a lot of equity in a marriage.

 

Now if you really don't think he knows he screwed up, I can see resentment might be there. In the example I gave with my friend, he continued to defend the decision. There was a lot of stony silence. It took awhile before he acknowledge and took ownership.

The greatest gift you can give him is to not get mad when he does whatever he wants and makes a huge mistake???

 

Grosssss

[goldberry]

Thankfully, we don't have the kind of marriage where either of us would do something blatantly against the other's wishes.  So, there ya go.

 

Hmm.. so never in my marriage that I can remember have I actually reached the point on something where I said, "No. You can't do this."  and DH has never done that to me either.  I have said, "I don't think this is a good idea and here's why."  He has responded, "Well I do think it's a good idea and here's why."  So he does it.  Was that "blatantly against my wishes"?  I don't think so.  He didn't mean it that way and I didn't take it that way.  He has the right to disagree with my reasoning, just as I disagree with his on occasion.  

[marbel]

Oh good grief.....I am saying that if my husband wants to invest $5,000 into a friends' new business and I think it is a really bad idea, but he goes ahead and does it anyway, I would be upset.

 

And yes, when we couldn't pay for my son's community college tuition, this conversation might come up!  And I would expect it to come up if it were the other way around.....not because we are vengeful people, but because we are human and we expect each other to RESPECT the other's opinions.  

 

But thankfully, we are NOT in that kind of marriage and this will NEVER happen.

 

I am getting piled on by everyone BUT the person to whom I addressed it.  The person to whom I was speaking referenced a book which really sets off my triggers as I watch so many women suffering with bad husbands.  

 

OK, sorry, I'm not trying to pile on, I just figured it was an open conversation here.   I do have a question but you are free to ignore it, of course.

 

My father held a lot of resentment against my mother later in their lives because she said no to some real estate deals that, as it turned out, would have been a great investment. Someone made a lot of money, and it could have been my parents, except that she said no.  

 

Do you think his resentment was justified?    It works both ways, right?  

 

Again, feel free to ignore if this is bothersome. I'm not trying to argue, just engage in the discussion.  

[DawnM]

I'm sorry Dawn, I was just responding in general to the idea, not meaning to target you or your post. It's was interesting to me because it reminded me of various actual situations.   :grouphug:

 

Thank you.

 

I admit this topic really upsets me.  I too am thinking of actual situations (not mine) and some of these marriages scare me.

 

Over the years I have seen homeschool moms in my various groups:

 

Have husbands leave

Have husbands cheat

Have above husbands take all the money

Have husbands die

Have husbands lose jobs

Have husbands become very ill

 

And when there is a "me man, you woman, you obey!" grunting attitude, and then the above circumstances happen, I have seen things completely fall apart.  The women don't know how to run things, how to make major decisions, etc.....

 

And then there are just downright crappy husbands.  I have a friend with one right now.  She can't even enroll her children in events and get money for them without "requesting permission" from her husband.  I want to smack him.

 

Call me liberal, call me a feminist.....but I am not.  I am not demanding things, I am not burning my bra.....but I will be darned if I am silent watching!

 

And FWIW:  My husband is not like any of this.  Sure we have some differences, but he is not the overbearing brute that I see so often.  (or define it how you wish.)

[goldberry]

The greatest gift you can give him is to not get mad when he does whatever he wants and makes a huge mistake???

 

Grosssss

 

It's giving him grace when he makes a mistake, the same as I want grace when I've made a mistake, and not have it thrown in my face.    I'm obviously not communicating it correctly if it seems gross.  I'm speaking from the perspective of a long and healthy marriage, with a history of respect and working together.  I could understand seeing it differently applied to an isolated incident or in an unhealthy dynamic.  Sorry, I'll bow out now!

[DawnM]

OK, sorry, I'm not trying to pile on, I just figured it was an open conversation here.   I do have a question but you are free to ignore it, of course.

 

My father held a lot of resentment against my mother later in their lives because she said no to some real estate deals that, as it turned out, would have been a great investment. Someone made a lot of money, and it could have been my parents, except that she said no.  

 

Do you think his resentment was justified?    It works both ways, right?  

 

Again, feel free to ignore if this is bothersome. I'm not trying to argue, just engage in the discussion.  

 

 

No, no, no!

 

It ONLY works the other way!

 

:lol:

 

Just kidding.  

 

No, my POINT was not, "let the other make the decision and then BAM, blame, resent, blame, resent"  My POINT was that hopefully, through discussions, you come to MUTUAL agreements.  

 

Sometimes I think people jump into marriage with their blinders on.  We were told to go into marriage with our eyes wide open and keep them half shut for the rest of the your marriage!  :laugh:

 

No one should have to live with resenting the other.  And in a good marriage, without the power struggle, you can have that.

 

I am sorry your parents had this struggle.  I really am and I see it over and over again.  

 

DH and I are not free from disagreements, but we don't make big decisions without both agreeing to it and usually if there is something he feels very strongly about, I will concede, and vice versa.  There isn't that much we have to do that on.

[Lady Florida.]

Really, we're both adults and we treat each other as such.

 

And this is what it really comes down to. In a superior/inferior or head of household marriage, one spouse is not treated like an adult. Being "allowed to give input" is not being treated like an adult, an equal.

[DawnM]

It's giving him grace when he makes a mistake, the same as I want grace when I've made a mistake, and not have it thrown in my face.    I'm obviously not communicating it correctly if it seems gross.  I'm speaking from the perspective of a long and healthy marriage, with a history of respect and working together.  I could understand seeing it differently applied to an isolated incident or in an unhealthy dynamic.  Sorry, I'll bow out now!

 

I seem to be having trouble communicating my points as well.

[lllll]

nm 

 

Edited July 11, 2017 by tentwelve

[Guest]

It's giving him grace when he makes a mistake, the same as I want grace when I've made a mistake, and not have it thrown in my face. I'm obviously not communicating it correctly if it seems gross. I'm speaking from the perspective of a long and healthy marriage, with a history of respect and working together. I could understand seeing it differently applied to an isolated incident or in an unhealthy dynamic. Sorry, I'll bow out now!

I understand but I don't think "grace" as applied between partners is mutually exclusive to anger. But that's a very different type of conversation I guess, and I've monopolized enough here today.

[marbel]

<snip>

 

DH and I are not free from disagreements, but we don't make big decisions without both agreeing to it and usually if there is something he feels very strongly about, I will concede, and vice versa.  There isn't that much we have to do that on.

 

But that's my point though I didn't say it that way.

 

Both parents felt strongly about it and could not come to an agreement.  My father conceded to my mother.  It turned out she was wrong.  And he resented it. 

 

I'm not saying this as 'see, the husband is always right' but rather to say whoever makes the decision, there is always the possibility that it will be wrong.   It's true that by not investing, they did not lose any money, so at least there's that.   But there is always the risk of a wrong decision, even when people talk it over and try to come to agreement.  And if someone is going to stay married for 40, 50 years... that can be a long time to be pissed off at someone for a mistake.  

[DawnM]

But that's my point though I didn't say it that way.

 

Both parents felt strongly about it and could not come to an agreement.  My father conceded to my mother.  It turned out she was wrong.  And he resented it. 

 

I'm not saying this as 'see, the husband is always right' but rather to say whoever makes the decision, there is always the possibility that it will be wrong.   It's true that by not investing, they did not lose any money, so at least there's that.   But there is always the risk of a wrong decision, even when people talk it over and try to come to agreement.  And if someone is going to stay married for 40, 50 years... that can be a long time to be pissed off at someone for a mistake.  

 

I typed up a long response but bottom line is, once the decision is made, particularly if it is not reversible, then the decision is made.  My original response was to the "if your husband pushes for something, and does it even if you disagree..... because he is the man."

 

I am very sorry things turned out the way they did for your parents.  Heck, I get mad at MYSELF for financial decisions from the past.....our house that we bought for $142,000 in 1998 is now worth $780,000.  I wish to high heaven we would have kept that house and rented it out or something.

 

But Dh keeps reminding me that we don't have a Crystal ball and can't anticipate financial gambles.....you can win big, but you can also lose your shirt.

[mykidsrmyjoy]

And this is what it really comes down to. In a superior/inferior or head of household marriage, one spouse is not treated like an adult. Being "allowed to give input" is not being treated like an adult, an equal.

But see, having the husband as the head of the household doesn't mean the wife is only "allowed to give input". I've always been treated as a very valuable adult by my husband, who also happens to be the head of our household. My opinion is extremely valuable to him and we consult each other and work together in a harmonious way every single day. It's not a matter of he being superior and I being inferior at all. He would make the final decision in a situation where we might not agree, but I can only think of 1 or 2 times in our whole marriage where this has even happened. We get each other's input on any major decision and usually come to agreement without any fuss or problem.

[Carol in Cal.]

Whether or not you are in a marriage that is 'traditional'. please, PLEASE get to know your finances, especially retirement assets.

 

I have several SAHM friends who believed that their husbands were saving regularly and significantly into their 401Ks, only to find out when they were divorcing that he was not, that he HAD not, and that they had to start building their own retirements in their 50s without any career momentum.  This is exceedingly difficult and quite unfair but the way the law works here it did not obligate the husbands to provide much in the way of longterm support.  

 

We have seen this pattern here on these boards, too.

 

Trust but verify.

Edited July 8, 2017 by Carol in Cal.

[Bootsie]

 

 

When I say traditional gender roles, I think I mean less the division of labor aspect and more the superior/inferior (positionally, not intrinsically) dynamic.  The one where if one of you does something against the other's wishes (however minute), it could be classified as defiant or insubordinate, while if the roles were reversed that terminology would definitely not apply.  Does that make sense?

I grew up in what would generally be classified as a conservative home where parents had traditional gender roles.  I can not imagine an attitude that my mom's doing something against my dad's will being defiant or insubordinate.  Ii can not imagine my parents having that attitude toward each other.  (I can't imagine my grandparents having this type of attitude either)

[Guest]

But that's my point though I didn't say it that way.

 

Both parents felt strongly about it and could not come to an agreement. My father conceded to my mother. It turned out she was wrong. And he resented it.

 

I'm not saying this as 'see, the husband is always right' but rather to say whoever makes the decision, there is always the possibility that it will be wrong. It's true that by not investing, they did not lose any money, so at least there's that. But there is always the risk of a wrong decision, even when people talk it over and try to come to agreement. And if someone is going to stay married for 40, 50 years... that can be a long time to be pissed off at someone for a mistake.

 

Sorry but if it was decided between them to go with her gut not his, they are equally culpable. If she steamrolled him then I'm sorry for you on a whole other level.

 

The Quakers never make any decision except by 100% consensus among relevant parties. If that means that some times things get shelved indefinitely, then so be it. Really. If they can do it in large groups when passions run high, you can betchur buns two people in high(est) accord with one another can do it too.

[DawnM]

I grew up in what would generally be classified as a conservative home where parents had traditional gender roles.  I can not imagine an attitude that my mom's doing something against my dad's will being defiant or insubordinate.  Ii can not imagine my parents having that attitude toward each other.  (I can't imagine my grandparents having this type of attitude either)

 

 

I am thinking the wording is part of the issue, but then again, it seems to be a debate anyway (not just here, but in many Christian circles.)

[EmseB]

Negative. The money is already in hand. Changing nothing about the status of the money is a non action. Any random bee up the butt about changing the status of the money being under committee oversight is not a sacrifice, it is nothing.

 

You're using "allowed" not allowed terminology. It's not about being allowed, it's about being community (of 2) property.

I complete disagree with this perspective.

 

Getting buy-in and working towards mutual agreement is the goal, sure. But not doing the investment is not a neutral position. And if not doing the thing is the default, that can put a lot of pressure on the spouse who does

 

And this can come up in a variety of ways. Buying a house, starting a business, sending the kids to a certain college...it means the more frugal spouse doesn't have to make their case because the money is already doing what they want to do. And if it's a one income family with the non-earner wanting to do the thing? It gives an imbalance of power and allows one spouse to effectively control the money.

 

I think we may be talking about different things because, generally, when we've made large financial decisions it hasn't been because one of us got a random bee up our butts. Or, at least, we don't treat each other's desires/wishes that way. Because if my DH wants to do something big with our cash money, and I regard it as a random impulse...that's going to cause huge resentment.

 

Like when I wanted to teach childbirth classes that required $$$$ to get certified. It wasn't a random bee, kwim? But if default is no, then I'm definitely sacrificing a dream at that point. If he wanted to go get his PhD, not a random bee. Does that make sense? I do think there can be a gracious surrendering of life goals when the family requires money not to be spent on something. I just don't think no as the default creates a healthy dynamic.

[Bootsie]

At the end of the day, SOMEBODY has to make the decision. My DH cannot simultaneously invest in his friend's startup and not invest. Either he makes the investment or he doesn't. We had a disagreement over the decision. I gave my reasoning but as head of household ultimately left the decision up to him. If he had disagreed with my reasoning, he could have still invested.

 

If no one is head of the household, how do disagreements like this ever get resolved when the spouses cannot come to a mutually agreed upon decision?

It depends on the situation.  Sometimes DH or I will say,, "This is not the decision that I want, but I am willing to give on it."  

 

If it is a situation where one person will have the most responsibility, they get to choose, e.g. DH is going to clean the shower, his preference on the tile to use takes preference

 

If one person will be terrible inconvenienced about a decision, they get to choose.

 

If one person feels very strongly, they get to choose.  e.g. I want to buy car A, but DH is very concerned about specific safety issues associated with the car, we don't buy the car.

 

If one person knows a lot more about the decision and the other person does not want to take the time and energy to learn, the person who knows more makes the decision.

 

Is there something that the person getting his way can offer in return for getting his way?  DH gets $X to invest in startup and I get $X to buy the new appliances I want.  Or, DH getx $X to invest, and I get to choose where we go on vacation this summer.

 

Is there something else that can meet the needs of the person wanting to do something that is acceptable to both parties?  DH wants to invest and try out what it is like to be part-owner of a business.  Is there another business opportunity that I would be more comfortable with that still meets that need

 

What is the reason I do not want what DH wants?  Am I scared about our financial future?  Would a better understanding of our financial situation help with that concern?  Would saying that we can do this after we have $X in an IRA help?

 

There are many ways to negotiate these situations.  Often being able to identify the real desire of the party who wants to do something (be a good friend, make $, try a new activity...) and the real concern of the part who doesn't want to do something (concern about finances, concern about the particular business venture, not understanding the deal and feeling out of control....)  helps steer the negotiation in a way that leads to a solution that all can live with (even if it isn't each persons most desired outcome)

[Guest]

I complete disagree with this perspective.

 

Getting buy-in and working towards mutual agreement is the goal, sure. But not doing the investment is not a neutral position. And if not doing the thing is the default, that can put a lot of pressure on the spouse who does

 

And this can come up in a variety of ways. Buying a house, starting a business, sending the kids to a certain college...it means the more frugal spouse doesn't have to make their case because the money is already doing what they want to do. And if it's a one income family with the non-earner wanting to do the thing? It gives an imbalance of power and allows one spouse to effectively control the money.

 

I think we may be talking about different things because, generally, when we've made large financial decisions it hasn't been because one of us got a random bee up our butts. Or, at least, we don't treat each other's desires/wishes that way. Because if my DH wants to do something big with our cash money, and I regard it as a random impulse...that's going to cause huge resentment.

 

Like when I wanted to teach childbirth classes that required $$$$ to get certified. It wasn't a random bee, kwim? But if default is no, then I'm definitely sacrificing a dream at that point. If he wanted to go get his PhD, not a random bee. Does that make sense? I do think there can be a gracious surrendering of life goals when the family requires money not to be spent on something. I just don't think no as the default creates a healthy dynamic.

The default is not "no," the default is "we will decide together because the money is OURS, not yours, not mine." Edited July 8, 2017 by OKBud

[maize]

I don't think there is an ideal marriage arrangement that is going to work for everyone. If Crimson says that viewing her husband as the head of the family has improved her marriage I believe her. If someone else says that there is no head in their marriage and that works perfectly for them I believe them.

 

My marriage--well, I don't have a clue what outside observers would think of the dynamics of my marriage. I do believe that we're doing a pretty darn descent job of muddling through given our particular set of circumstances, strengths, and weaknesses.

[Lady Florida.]

At the end of the day, SOMEBODY has to make the decision. 

 

If no one is head of the household, how do disagreements like this ever get resolved when the spouses cannot come to a mutually agreed upon decision?

 

True, if there's no agreement someone DOES have to make a decision but it doesn't have to be one designated person all the time.

 

I won't repeat what others already posted, but will agree that there are many ways to choose who makes the final decision and who that is might change depending on the decision to be made. "No" can also be a decision. And if it isn't time sensitive, both parties can think on it for a while and revisit it at a later, mutually agreed upon time.

 

The fact that someone has to make a decision in the end doesn't automatically mean that someone either the husband or the wife, or that it has to be the same person every time. 

[Anne]

I appreciate all the responses and am mulling them over.

 

When I say traditional gender roles, I think I mean less the division of labor aspect and more the superior/inferior (positionally, not intrinsically) dynamic. The one where if one of you does something against the other's wishes (however minute), it could be classified as defiant or insubordinate, while if the roles were reversed that terminology would definitely not apply. Does that make sense?

Speaking as someone with a Christian conservative viewpoint, I would find any characterization of a marriage partner's behavior as "defiant" or "insubordinate" as abusive and condescending.

 

Anne

[Wheres Toto]

In our case, no is only the default if we both feel equally strong about it (as near as we can tell) and absolutely can't come to an agreement.  I actually can't think of anything where that's happened.  Usually something is more important to one or the other of us.  Sometimes we compromise.  A good bit of the time, it turns out we are both okay with doing something.  Homeschooling is a good example.  I brought up the initial idea of homeschooling and actually thought I may have to convince him.  Turned out, he was fully on board with the idea from the beginning.

 

Another example, dh always wanted to start his own company.  When he was laid off (while under contract!), the circumstances made it an ideal time to try.  They were offering a bunch of projects to buy out the contract, they were being given equipment, a lab to work out of, and already had clients.  Add that dh was already in his late 50's and there probably wasn't going to be another opportunity.   

 

There were risks - to our finances, to my SAH status (which ended up changing for three years), it meant a life-style change for sure.  But it was more important to him then it was to me.  We discussed it and agreed on a plan of action, a plan that was modified through-out the years as circumstances changed.   

 

It ended up not working out but there's no real resentment on either side because he got to give it a try and we did everything we could to make it work, but he didn't decide to do it on his own without us discussing the impact it was likely to have on the family. 

[Scarlett]

Our marriage is very much as much a division of labor as it is traditional roles. Yes we live a headship model, but I am much better at money and I often have to step up and say stop spending or we can't afford that.

 

Me saying put this away ( I would please) would not be weird at all. We aren't each other's servants but we do serve each other a lot.

[Scarlett]

I appreciate all the responses and am mulling them over.

 

When I say traditional gender roles, I think I mean less the division of labor aspect and more the superior/inferior (positionally, not intrinsically) dynamic. The one where if one of you does something against the other's wishes (however minute), it could be classified as defiant or insubordinate, while if the roles were reversed that terminology would definitely not apply. Does that make sense?

Nothing like any traditional marriage I have ever known. That is not what the headship model is. Not to me and my world anyway.

[Guest]

I am in a lifelong, loving Christian marriage as were my parents and grandparents. Not one of these relationships would be defined by superior/inferior. I think that idea comes from a misunderstanding of authority as a bludgeon instead of a responsibility.

Yeah, I even practice biblical submission and it doesn't look that way. It's not a power dynamic or positional dynamic in quite the way the OP is describing.

[Wheres Toto]

I guess I can give an example of what I see as a "traditional" head-of-household arrangement.

 

I have a friend whose husband gives her an allowance.  She has a certain amount of money to buy groceries and if she needs money for anything else, has to ask for it.  Sometimes it will be granted, sometimes it won't.  Her husband makes the final decision on how all money is spent.

 

I know many MANY women who have to basically ask for permission to go out with friends.  The default is that she is in charge of dinner, kids, bedtime rituals, etc. and if she wants to change that, she needs to ask.   She cannot go out even if he has no other reason than he "doesn't feel like" doing any of those things.

 

One of many things that led to my divorce was ex had a lot of resentment when I returned to school.  We discussed it (I was collecting unemployment, working under the table, and had free tuition so very little expense involved, it would have led to much better situation for the family), but it turns out he resented that I did not "ask his permission" to return to school.   Discussion did not matter, I should have explicitly asked him to allow me to do this.   He resentment led to actual behaviors that led toward our divorce.  No, we under no circumstances had a "traditional" marriage in this sense up to that point.

[Guest]

I guess I can give an example of what I see as a "traditional" head-of-household arrangement.

 

I have a friend whose husband gives her an allowance. She has a certain amount of money to buy groceries and if she needs money for anything else, has to ask for it. Sometimes it will be granted, sometimes it won't. Her husband makes the final decision on how all money is spent.

 

I know many MANY women who have to basically ask for permission to go out with friends. The default is that she is in charge of dinner, kids, bedtime rituals, etc. and if she wants to change that, she needs to ask. She cannot go out even if he has no other reason than he "doesn't feel like" doing any of those things.

 

One of many things that led to my divorce was ex had a lot of resentment when I returned to school. We discussed it (I was collecting unemployment, working under the table, and had free tuition so very little expense involved, it would have led to much better situation for the family), but it turns out he resented that I did not "ask his permission" to return to school. Discussion did not matter, I should have explicitly asked him to allow me to do this. He resentment led to actual behaviors that led toward our divorce. No, we under no circumstances had a "traditional" marriage in this sense up to that point.

What I've seen more around my circles (Especially outside of church or religious circles) is women having this sort of power over the money and husbands being the ones on "allowance". I think no matter who is the allowance giver, anytime you have a relationship that unbalanced it's setting up for secrecy and dishonesty. But I've seen far more women take pride in being the controlling keeper of the finances in my generation than men. Maybe it's a generational thing.

 

ETA- not saying anyone hasn't experienced this or making light of it. Just pointing out that men on these threads tend to get a lot of the finger pointing as being controlling, but I think there are a lot of women in this position too. (Not you Toto- just used your thread as a quote.)

Edited July 8, 2017 by texasmom33

[lllll]

nm 

 

Edited July 11, 2017 by tentwelve

[Guest]

Speaking as someone with a Christian conservative viewpoint, I would find any characterization of a marriage partner's behavior as "defiant" or "insubordinate" as abusive and condescending.

 

Anne

What word would you use when the spouse goes against the head's known wishes?

 

What happens if the spouse goes against the head's known wishes?

 

If nothing happens, then what's the point of having a head?

[Guest]

I don't think there is an ideal marriage arrangement that is going to work for everyone. If Crimson says that viewing her husband as the head of the family has improved her marriage I believe her. If someone else says that there is no head in their marriage and that works perfectly for them I believe them.

 

.

Well, yeah. I believe that when one person decides to defer to the other person, the other person will be happier and therefore days will be more peaceful too.

 

I guess people probably think I'm being snarky, but that's not the feeling I have right now, and hope it's not completely being read that way. Disenfranchisement is a very pressing problem. It's not and it not and it's not until BAM one day, it is. And if that "one day" comes, it's too late.

[Scarlett]

What word would you use when the spouse goes against the head's known wishes?

 

What happens if the spouse goes against the head's known wishes?

 

If nothing happens, then what's the point of having a head?

A Head leads. He isn't a dictator or micromanager. I imagine the big things that would cause a problem would also cause a problem in a marriage where Headship is not practiced.

[Guest]

What word would you use when the spouse goes against the head's known wishes?

 

What happens if the spouse goes against the head's known wishes?

 

If nothing happens, then what's the point of having a head?

Well, headship is a lot more about accountability to God and one's family than about control, biblically anyway. Edited July 8, 2017 by Arctic Mama

[DawnM]

 

 

Is there something that the person getting his way can offer in return for getting his way?  DH gets $X to invest in startup and I get $X to buy the new appliances I want.  Or, DH getx $X to invest, and I get to choose where we go on vacation this summer.

 

 

My mind is not reading "$X" as money...... :lol:

[QueenCat]

Thankfully, we don't have the kind of marriage where either of us would do something blatantly against the other's wishes.  So, there ya go.

 

Same here. In fact, I can't really imagine it.

[Lady Florida.]

  

 

DH and I are not free from disagreements, but we don't make big decisions without both agreeing to it and usually if there is something he feels very strongly about, I will concede, and vice versa.  There isn't that much we have to do that on.

 

 

Thankfully, we don't have the kind of marriage where either of us would do something blatantly against the other's wishes.  So, there ya go.

 

 

Same here. In fact, I can't really imagine it.

 

That's how it works with us and with all of the marriages I know that don't have one person as "head" (I actually only knew of one me-man-you-woman marriage and I didn't know them very well. They were friends of a homeschool friend). Just because one person isn't officially in charge doesn't mean both partners are just doing whatever they want or going completely against the wishes of the other. I'm sure people in these traditional marriages will say the same - that their dh in charge doesn't just do whatever he wants. The difference is that at the end of the day he can do whatever he wants because he's in charge.

[QueenCat]

I guess I can give an example of what I see as a "traditional" head-of-household arrangement.

 

I have a friend whose husband gives her an allowance.  She has a certain amount of money to buy groceries and if she needs money for anything else, has to ask for it.  Sometimes it will be granted, sometimes it won't.  Her husband makes the final decision on how all money is spent.

 

I know many MANY women who have to basically ask for permission to go out with friends.  The default is that she is in charge of dinner, kids, bedtime rituals, etc. and if she wants to change that, she needs to ask.   She cannot go out even if he has no other reason than he "doesn't feel like" doing any of those things.

 

 

 

I wouldn't survive in either of those scenarios. In the second, dh would look at me as if I had two heads if I asked permission to go out with friends. Even when the kids were little. If I see the calendar is empty, then I know he'll be home. And he wasn't a babysitter, because he's their dad! A babysitter would be who we'd hire to go out together or if we both had something going on in the evening........

[QueenCat]

That's how it works with us and with all of the marriages I know that don't have one person as "head" (I actually only knew of one me-man-you-woman marriage and I didn't know them very well. They were friends of a homeschool friend). Just because one person isn't officially in charge doesn't mean both partners are just doing whatever they want or going completely against the wishes of the other. I'm sure people in these traditional marriages will say the same - that their dh in charge doesn't just do whatever he wants. The difference is that at the end of the day he can do whatever he wants because he's in charge.

 

I guess that's why this type of traditional marriage wouldn't work for me or dh. Why on earth would he get to do that if something impacts me more than him? Just because "he can"?

[goldberry]

 I'm sure people in these traditional marriages will say the same - that their dh in charge doesn't just do whatever he wants. The difference is that at the end of the day he can do whatever he wants because he's in charge.

 

I don't think that's what it means.  If he does that (do whatever he wants just because he is in charge) then he is destroying the relationship.  That is using headship/traditional marriage as an excuse to be an ass, because that is not what headship or leadership is.